407.02    Scope and Nature of Requests for Admission

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a) Requests for Admission.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(1) Scope. A party may serve on any other party a written request to admit, for purposes of the pending action only, of the truth of any matters within the scope of Rule 26(b)(1) relating to:

  • (A) facts, the application of law to fact, or opinions about either; and
  • (B) the genuineness of any described documents.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(2) Form; Copy of a Document. Each matter must be separately stated. A request to admit the genuineness of a document must be accompanied by a copy of the document unless it is, or has been, or otherwise furnished or made available for inspection and copying.

The scope and nature of requests for admission, in inter partes proceedings before the Board, are governed by Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a), which in turn refers to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

For a discussion of the scope of discovery permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) and electronically stored information, see TBMP § 402.01 and TBMP § 402.02.

By definition, requests for admissions are designed to confirm the accuracy of information already available and are not designed to seek discovery of unknown information. Requests for admission are particularly useful for determining, prior to trial, which facts are not in dispute, thereby narrowing the matters that must be tried. These requests are also useful as a means of facilitating the introduction into evidence of documents produced by an adversary in response to a request for production of documents. [ Note 1.] TBMP § 403.05(b).

Unlike an interrogatory, through which a party asks its adversary to provide certain substantive information, a request for admission is a means through which a party asks its adversary to stipulate to a certain matter so as to reduce issues for trial. [ Note 2.] A party responding to a request for admission must admit the matter of which an admission is requested, deny the matter, or state in detail the reasons why the responding party cannot truthfully admit or deny the matter. [ Note 3.] See TBMP § 407.03(b) (Nature of Responses). An admission in response to a request for admission "conclusively establishe[s]" the matter that is the subject of that request. [ Note 4.] However, a denial in response to a request for admission is merely a refusal to stipulate to a certain matter, thus leaving that matter to be resolved on the merits. [ Note 5.] Accordingly, requests for admission are not properly used as additional means of obtaining substantive information to circumvent the numerical limit on interrogatories. Further, a motion to test the sufficiency of a response to a request for admission is not properly based on a denial of a request for admissions that a propounding party/movant believes should have been admitted. [ Note 6.]

NOTES:

 1.   See, e.g., ProQuest Information and Learning Co. v. Island, 83 USPQ2d 1351, 1353 n.6 (TTAB 2007) (opposer filed notice of reliance on applicant’s response to request for admission and exhibits thereto that all documents it produced in response to opposer’s discovery requests were authentic for purposes of admission into evidence during the testimony period in the opposition proceeding); Kohler Co. v. Baldwin Hardware Corp., 82 USPQ2d 1100, 1103 (TTAB 2007) (documents produced in response to petitioner’s interrogatories under Fed. R. Civ. P. 33(d) for which respondent admitted via a request for admission were true and correct copies of authentic documents could be introduced by way of notice of reliance).

 2.   See The Phillies v. Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp., 107 USPQ2d 2149, 2152 (TTAB 2013).

 3.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(a)(4).

 4.   Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b).

 5.   See The Phillies v. Philadelphia Consolidated Holding Corp., 107 USPQ2d, 2149, 2152 (TTAB 2013); Sinclair Oil Corp. v. Kendrick, 85 USPQ2d 1032, 1036 n.8 (TTAB 2007).

 6.   See National Semiconductor Corp. v. Ramtron International Corp., 265 F.Supp.2d 71 (D.D.C. 2003).